Sola Scriptura - what do you think is the BEST argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cjaubert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The best argument to not rely upon scripture alone is that the Bible tells us not to rely upon scripture alone.🙂
 
40.png
LSK:
The best argument to not rely upon scripture alone is that the Bible tells us not to rely upon scripture alone.🙂
Click to expand...
That’s good.

Here is the meat of the best argument I have ever come across. Taken from:
Sungenis Answers James White on the Bodily Assumption of Our Lady

Halfway down the page is found:
This is where the doctrine of Sola Scripture traps its unwitting proponents, like a fly in a spider’s web. For everything, let me emphasize EVERYTHING, they claim as inerrant truth on faith and morals must come from the Bible. Anytime you are in a discussion with a Protestant and he makes an assertion about where truth is to be found, ask him, “Where does the Bible teach that doctrine is only to come from the Bible?” If he points to such and such verse, he has trapped himself again, this time permanently. Why? Because any verse of Scripture that he claims is teaching that the Bible is the only source of doctrine (i.e., Sola Scriptura; and we are assuming inerrant doctrinal teaching), means that that verse was teaching Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians who were alive at the time the supposed verse was written. It would also be teaching Sola Scriptura to Christians of today, since the same interpretion given to the first century Christians must be the same interpretation for Christians today, being that one cannot have opposite interpretations of the same verse. It is an accepted fact, among both Catholics and Protestants, that the apostles and prophets gave oral instruction to the first century Christians, in addition to written instruction contained in the Bible. This was no ordinary oral instruction. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that this oral revelation to the people was to be considered the very words of God himself. This is also why in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul told these same Thessalonians to preserve the oral instruction, along with the written.
Click to expand...
Now here is the unanswerable problem, if you haven’t discovered it already. How can the Bible be teaching the first century Christians that only the Bible is their inerrant source of authority, if at the same time, oral revelation was still being given to them?? You can’t claim that there is only one source of authority (the Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (the Bible and oral revelation). Logically, the Bible cannot teach Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians. If it did, it would be contradicting itself, as well as the oral revelation that was still being given. This is the trap of Sola Scriptura, and it is an inescapable trap.
Click to expand...
Game, set, and match.

Peace in Christ…Salmon
 
History…just look at the fruits of this false doctrine…it is a recipe for chaos!

Sola Scriptura presuposes private interpretation because with SS there can be no Scriptural authority outside of the Bible, leaving each and every reader of Scripture to manage on their own. It only gets worse as you follow the logical extension of this teaching.

In an email debate I had with a friend a few years ago, I asked him to give me one verse from the Bible that refers to Sola Scriptura and he smugly replied that he doesnt think you can support a teaching with any less that 2 verses…so I then replied that I would gladly accept 2 verses that support SS…needless to say, I never got even 1 verse, much less 2. I never heard from him again!!
 
40.png
martino:
History…just look at the fruits of this false doctrine…it is a recipe for chaos!

Sola Scriptura presuposes private interpretation because with SS there can be no Scriptural authority outside of the Bible, leaving each and every reader of Scripture to manage on their own. It only gets worse as you follow the logical extension of this teaching.

In an email debate I had with a friend a few years ago, I asked him to give me one verse from the Bible that refers to Sola Scriptura and he smugly replied that he doesnt think you can support a teaching with any less that 2 verses…so I then replied that I would gladly accept 2 verses that support SS…needless to say, I never got even 1 verse, much less 2. I never heard from him again!!
Click to expand...
The greatest argument for the Catholic Church and its authority is that it works. For two thousand years, the Church has taught a consistent, coherent doctrine. In less than a quarter of that time Protestantism has split, fragmented, re-split and so on, until today there are some 33,000 different sects in the US alone.
 
I know this is a little long but this is my favorite passages out of a book by St. Francis de Sales; I think he can shed some light on the question.

**“If the Church can err, O Luther, O Calvin to whom shall I have recourse in my difficulties? The Scripture, say they. But what shall I, poor man, do, for it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies. I am not in doubt whether I must believe the Scripture or not; for who knows not that it is the Word of Truth? What keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this Scripture and the conclusions to be drawn from it, which are innumerable, diverse and opposite on the same subject; and everybody takes his view, one this, another that, though out of all there is but one which is sound; Ah! who will give me to know the good among so many bad? Who will tell me the real verity through so many specious and masked vanities? Everybody would embark on the ship of the Holy Spirit; there is but one, and only that one shall reach the port, all the rest are on their way to shipwreck. Ah! what danger am I in of erring! All shout out their claims with equal assurance and thus deceive the greater part, for all boast that theirs is the ship. Whoever says that our Master has not left us guides in so dangerous and difficult a way, says that he wishes us to parish. Whoever says that he has put us aboard at the mercy of wind and tide, without giving us a skilful pilot able to use properly his compass and chart, says that the Savior is wanting in foresight. Whoever says that this good Father has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing that error was taught there, says he intended to foster our vice and our ignorance. Who has ever heard of an academy in which everybody taught, and nobody was a scholar?—such would be the Christian commonwealth if the Church can err. For if the Church herself err, who shall not err? And if each one in it err, or can err, to whom shall I betake myself for instruction?—to Calvin? But why to him rather than to Luther, or Brentius, or Pacimontanus? Truly, if I must take my chance of being damned for error, I will be so for my own and not for another’s, and will let these wits of mine scatter freely about, and maybe they will find the truth as quickly as anybody else. We should not know then whither to turn in our difficulties if the Church erred.” **
 
For Sola Scriptura to work, the Bible would have had to have fallen from heaven or been handed off by an angel, bound in black leather with gilt edges. I am so bothered by people who seem to think that one of these two possibilities actually happened. I don’t get it when they cannot accept that the Teaching Church is who produced the Bible, in the persons of the Apostles or their close associates, that the Teaching Church is who established definitively the Canon, and that the Bible means what the Teaching Church says that it means.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
For Sola Scriptura to work, the Bible would have had to have fallen from heaven or been handed off by an angel, bound in black leather with gilt edges. I am so bothered by people who seem to think that one of these two possibilities actually happened. I don’t get it when they cannot accept that the Teaching Church is who produced the Bible, in the persons of the Apostles or their close associates, that the Teaching Church is who established definitively the Canon, and that the Bible means what the Teaching Church says that it means.
Click to expand...
That is why I (uncharitable wretch that I am) refer to Sola Scriptura as “Garage Sale Theology.”

Its proponents seem to regard the Bible as newly-discovered (perhaps found at a garage sale), with no idea of how it came to be, and with no one else ever having read it. They come up with “new” ideas and interpretations which are often old heresies disposed of a thousand years in the past.
 
40.png
cjaubert:
…What do you think is the one, single, best argument against the concept and in favor of the Catholic position?
Click to expand...
If you never read the Bible can you still go to heaven? If you never heard a single verse from the Bible could you still be ‘saved?’ Could you still go to heaven? Do you have to read the Bible to know Jesus as your pesonnal Lord and savior? Does Jesus have a litmus test on your Bible skills?

Where did Jesus command us to write a Bible?

Where did Jesus command us to read the Bible?

Where did Jesus command us to listen to the Bible in ‘worship’ services?

So enough of the background and now to the real questions:

Will the 12 apostles be saved since they never read the Bible or even felt like writting one or even preached from one?

Will the first 400 years of Christians be saved since they had no Bibles at all?

Will all the Christians who are deaf or blind go to hell because they cannot read or hear from the Bible?

Can Christians today be saved if they never hear of the Bible or heard verses from it?

If your plane crashes on a deserted island and you have no Bible will all your future children go to hell since they will have no Bible on that island?

Sola Scriptura is so lame. The Bible is but a tool of the Church. The reformers chose to worship the Bible like a graven image instead of obeying the Church and the authority that commissioned it. This is like a kid working on his car worshiping the screwdriver because it is so handy instead of the mechanic that designed it to help fix the car. Of course this is but one tool of the mechanic too.

Sola Scriptura = :whacky:
 
Sola Scriptura causes doctrinal relativism.

Each denomination has their own set of Bible interpretations.
Show me where it says in the Bible which one of the tens of thousands of Bible interpretations is the correct one?

You can’t find this answer in the Bible.
To answer this question: This requires a MAGISTERIUM.
 
genesis-revelation…thats it…all interpretation and doctrine comes from these books…most importantly the new covenant…those that believe the bible is incomplete and needing further direction must be lost…be like looking at a completed map and saying…i can’t find it…i need more help…when the truth is right in front of you…you have your map for salvation you have all you need for life in that book…what else could you possibly need…

Ceasar
 
40.png
ceasar:
genesis-revelation…thats it…all interpretation and doctrine comes from these books…most importantly the new covenant…those that believe the bible is incomplete and needing further direction must be lost…be like looking at a completed map and saying…i can’t find it…i need more help…when the truth is right in front of you…you have your map for salvation you have all you need for life in that book…what else could you possibly need…

Ceasar
Click to expand...
HHmmmm, you didn’t even mention Jesus Christ. According to your post I don’t need Jesus, I just need the bible.

Sound like idolatry to me.

Hey bubba, I need Jesus Christ, and I find him in the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
ceasar:
genesis-revelation…thats it…all interpretation and doctrine comes from these books…most importantly the new covenant…those that believe the bible is incomplete and needing further direction must be lost…be like looking at a completed map and saying…i can’t find it…i need more help…when the truth is right in front of you…you have your map for salvation you have all you need for life in that book…what else could you possibly need…
Click to expand...
Yeah right. Show me where the apostolic interpretation of scripture is. Look at Luke 24 and Acts - the scriptures are interpreted BUT the interpretation is not written down.

When one reads a map, it is to be interpreted. The map is to be interpreted correctly. I can’t use a map of Chicago to get around in Los Angeles. I can’t put the map upside down and use it in Chicago. The map doesn’t come with this interpretation.

Neither does the Bible. There is no Apostolic approved concordance.
 
40.png
Salmon:
That’s good.

Here is the meat of the best argument I have ever come across. Taken from:
Sungenis Answers James White on the Bodily Assumption of Our Lady

Halfway down the page is found:

Game, set, and match.

Peace in Christ…Salmon
Click to expand...
I read the entire debate - I was impressed at how well Sungenis dismantled White despite White’s claims to the contrary - and this has to be one to the most easily attacked dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Thanks for the link…

Phil

My 5 year old daughter wants to see a “smiley” so here it goes
:love:
 
I have had this verse, somewhat misquoted, thrown at me to justify Sola Scriptura:

Rev 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

You may hear it, too. The response is that this verse was written BEFORE the New Testament was compiled. Therefore it applies only to the Book of Revelation. It was not inserted as a tag line when the NT was finalized, as if to shut down Sacred Tradition.
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
Yeah right. Show me where the apostolic interpretation of scripture is. Look at Luke 24 and Acts - the scriptures are interpreted BUT the interpretation is not written down.

When one reads a map, it is to be interpreted. The map is to be interpreted correctly. I can’t use a map of Chicago to get around in Los Angeles. I can’t put the map upside down and use it in Chicago. The map doesn’t come with this interpretation.

Neither does the Bible. There is no Apostolic approved concordance.
Click to expand...
i understand what your saying…as interpretation goes if you have a good understanding of scripture…and know how to cross reference and use study tools like concordances (strongs concordance very good tool) and commentaries (thayers,matthew henry…etc…))…one could grasp the full intention of the word…always good to study in the original languages in which the bible was writtin…hebrew/greek…not to mention we have the holy ghost as our teacher…i believe if someone truly wishes to find the truth on any subject he will find it…only through diligence of study and prayer…scripture says that we can interpret correctly…otherwise bible wouldn’t state us to “rightly dividing the word of truth…” …we are to “study to show ourselves approved” …just cause the catholic church doesn’t approve or haven’t approved of any concordance doesn’t mean you can’t study off of it…expression i’ve always heard was “eat the hay and spit out the sticks” its a odd expression but very true…honestly i lean very lightly on other peoples interpretations of scripture even those considered most revered in the faith…i always make sure that before i except any doctrine to fully study it out in the word…pray about it…and make sure that i have firm scripture to support the beliefs…any beliefs outside of scripture have no foundation to stand on…and quickly fail…anyways…thanks for the reply…hope this clears things up…

Ceasar
(non-denominational) or non-religion but a relationship
 
40.png
cjaubert:
We have all heard many arguments against the Protestant concept of Sola Scripura. What do you think is the one, single, best argument against the concept and in favor of the Catholic position?
Click to expand...

None so far 🙂​

Not least because the concept seems to be dealt with only in the forms it takes when presented by those who are relatively unskilful. A convincing refutation would deal with an argument as put by a skilful theologian - not as put by one lacking in skill. ##
 
40.png
ceasar:
i understand what your saying…as interpretation goes if you have a good understanding of scripture…and know how to cross reference and use study tools like concordances (strongs concordance very good tool) and commentaries (thayers,matthew henry…etc…))…one could grasp the full intention of the word…always good to study in the original languages in which the bible was writtin…hebrew/greek…not to mention we have the holy ghost as our teacher…i believe if someone truly wishes to find the truth on any subject he will find it…only through diligence of study and prayer…scripture says that we can interpret correctly…otherwise bible wouldn’t state us to “rightly dividing the word of truth…” …we are to “study to show ourselves approved” …]
Ceasar
(non-denominational) or non-religion but a relationship
Click to expand...
Are you reading Sola Scriptura into the phrase “rightly dividing the word of truth”? If so, that seems like quite a reach. Could you clarify?

Also, it’s impossible to study the inspired Scriptures yourself. The originals are all gone. See reason #13 here:

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## None so far 🙂

Not least because the concept seems to be dealt with only in the forms it takes when presented by those who are relatively unskilful. A convincing refutation would deal with an argument as put by a skilful theologian - not as put by one lacking in skill. ##
Click to expand...

Did you have an example in mind? I’ve seen many skillful protestants bite the dust in a Sola Scriptura debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top